The meaning of "when he deserts from service for a period of not less than 8 days" under Article 89-2 (1) of the former Military Service Act.

Article 89-2 subparagraph 1 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 5757 of Feb. 9, 199) means that the total number of days of secession from the military service designated under the direction and supervision of the head of the affiliated agency is not less than eight days, and if part of the working hours of a certain day is on duty, it shall not be deemed that such day of secession from the service.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 89-2 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 5757 of Feb. 9, 199)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Han-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 9No1265 delivered on July 14, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the primary facts charged

On August 10, 1998, the defendant was called as public interest service personnel on September 7, 1998, and was assigned to the gold-dong office in the Simpo of Simpo of Simpo of Simpo of Simpo on September 26, 199, and was currently suspended from service as administrative assistants until the 26th of the same month, and the defendant was absent from service without justifiable grounds for a total of eight days including September 8, 1998, from the 15th to the 19th of the same month, from the 23th of the same month, and

2. As to the escape from service on September 24, 1998

Examining the evidence set forth in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the measures that the defendant acknowledged that he had been absent from service without any justifiable reason on September 24, 1998 shall be deemed reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, or mistake of facts due to insufficient deliberation. Furthermore, although the facts charged that the defendant left service for a total of at least eight days including the date stated in the primary facts charged were added in the court below, the court below's dismissal of the defendant's appeal by recognizing the defendant guilty of the primary facts charged, and it can be confirmed that the court below did not make a decision on the said conjunctive facts while dismissing the defendant's appeal. Thus, the argument that the defendant did not leave service on September 21, 199

3. As to the escape from service on September 23, 1998

According to the relevant provisions of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 577 of Feb. 9, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply), if the number of public interest service personnel has been absent from their service, who are assigned to support the expenses, surveillance, protection or administrative work (hereinafter referred to as "administrative agency personnel") pursuant to Article 26 (1) 1 of the Act shall designate their service place and have them serve, and matters necessary for such service shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, except for those prescribed by this Act, and the administrative agency personnel shall be subject to the direction and supervision of their head, and if they are unable to leave their service or have them serve for a total period of not more than 7 days after leaving their service without justifiable grounds, they shall be subject to punishment for non-permanent service without justifiable grounds under Article 97 of the former Military Service Act (Article 31 (1) and (4) of the Act).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant is an administrative agency personnel with the head of the Sipo-si and the place of work designated by the Sipo-si is the Sipo-si office in the Sipo-si. However, from September 23, 1998 to 18:00, the defendant was recognized to have attended special mental education for all the public interest service personnel belonging to the Sipo-si in the Sipo-si conducted by the Sipo-si according to the order of the Sipo-si market during the period from September 17:0 to September 23, 1998, and the participation in education conducted by the head of the affiliated agency is not the service of the administrative agency personnel. Thus, even if the defendant did not

Nevertheless, in other opinions, the court below held that the defendant did not attend the gold-dong office on September 23, 1998, unless the defendant had been present at the above education, and that the defendant did not leave the service on the same day is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the renunciation of service of public duty personnel under the Military Service Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)